Jump to content

cowl

Member
  • Posts

    5,704
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by cowl

  1. It's not ‘slinger’; it's ‘slinger...’. The elipsis is usually his sole point.
  2. Aye, what with us being at home where we've finally had a decent run of results and against opposition who hadn't won in 6 and only once in their last 13, you can well understand why he'd fear the opposition's set up that much that he'd change the way we play rather than them. And yesterday, it was clear even after 10 minutes that the 4-4-2 wasn't giving us anything. We even had the players on the pitch to change to 3-5-2, but nah, let's stick with the failed plan.
  3. Yeah, it's really funny when we discover that someone that played for us didn't make it in the game.
  4. Has Shaw spat the dummy out though?
  5. But only five minutes had gone of that 2nd half! We've seen this time again with Wednesday starting halves slowly, and yeah, we've seen us concede and not recover or just play out a drab draw, but we've also seen us come back and get a win in such games. Both the wins against Derby and Coventry in this little run we'd been on had come from single goals scored after the hour mark too, after all, and in neither of these games had we played particularly well up to when we scored.
  6. We were poor today, but would we have lost with 11 on the pitch? Shaw was off only 5 minutes into the 2nd half, and it's not like the first half saw either side dominate any aspect of play.
  7. Moments before Shaw received his first yellow, you had Bannan literally, flagrantly and unapologetically tugged back by one of their defenders. Right in front of the ref too. He gave the free kick for it, of course, because there couldn't even have been a question of it not being a foul, but where was the book? How can such an obvious attempt to foul not receive a yellow? Shaw's first wasn't even remotely intentional. Just crazy reffing and all in the space of 30 seconds.
  8. It's the interview upon which the quote is based that makes it clearer: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/collection:p031xqzh/p097h8yh At about 5'45.
  9. If Bannan's under the impression that Shaw's not actually signed anything with Celtic yet then that can surely only be because he's spoken to Shaw himself. That Lennon said the other day that it was done might just as much to do with dirty tricks. After all, they have been more than just a little vocal in the media about their courting of both Shaw and the lad from Preston, and it might just be Celtic's experience in getting these soon-to-be-out-of-contract players to sign for them is to set a few fireworks off in the media.
  10. I'm assuming his comments today are a result of him having asked him.
  11. Poor subs. In fact, apart from bringing Rhodes on against Bournemouth, I've not been overly impressed with Thompson's use of subs. There often seems to be something almost reluctant about his use of them. Other teams are utilising their subs to make tactical changes; Thompson, for the most part, has only made changes for the sake of a fresh pair of legs — which can be an entirely adequate reason for subs, but we're also missing out on the opportunity to mix things up tactically. Still, Dunkley being brought off was quite strange. Rhodes, less so, but I'd have brought Paterson off today long before Rhodes if I'd had to. But we were very poor in that 2nd half anyway. Poor before the subs, and poor after them. It's annoying because in all 3 of the defeats under Thompson, the games have followed a similar pattern in that we compete in the first half, but then fade and offer little in resistance to the inevitable change in approach by the opposition in the 2nd. It's to be expected really, and this is where your 2nd half substitutes are so important; they either keep you in the game, or even get you the winner.
  12. There might be some education grants but I doubt that would return us much either.
  13. There's no point us bothering with the youth team and U-23 set-up is there? We have for produced so few players down the years that have convincingly made the step up to the first team anyway, and when we finally produce a few we prove to be so inept at getting them signed up before their potential becomes obvious to other clubs and we're either unable or unwilling to compete, and they then leave for next to nothing. So all we've got to show for it is the paltry development compensation. I'm not sure what money's involved in running both the youth and U-23s, but I doubt it provides any kind of profit for us.
  14. Yes, that and not lying to people.
  15. That's what I did; and I was calm about it too. Besides it was the post from last night that was far more aggressive, responding as I was to his baseless ‘big time charlies’ jibes. He softened his stance subsequently, and so did I (a little).
  16. He's lying though, and more to the point, to fellow fans. That also is unnecessary. And for what? His own entertainment?
  17. So what you basically ‘know’ is that Westwood, who is in the final year of his contract, has got his agent talking to the club about a knew contract? This is almost certainly going to be true for all the players that are out of contract this summer, and we have a lot of those at the moment. And only those, if there are any, that have made their mind up that they want to leave no matter what, may not be bothering with that (and even so, their agent might feel it prudent to talk to the club about a contract anyway). As for Hutchinson—yes, I can confirm that he went abroad. And that he's on less than before seems like a very reasonable assumption; that he's on ‘less than half’ than before he went is guesswork; but he's already said himself that the contract is incentive-based anyway, which is pretty much a give away that it's going to be appreciably much less than what he was on before. So you ‘know’ next to nothing. But it's nevertheless clear what your view of Hutchinson and Westwood as personalities is—or rather, it's clear what the view of the person whose lies you're repeating is; like I say, gullible.
  18. Someone has told you something and you gullibly believed them. They lied to you (or were repeating someone else's lie). The fact you lacked the wit to see that it was a lie is no excuse though. “Both tried to increase their contracts by explaining they needed to be involved in team management meetings”. Quite simply beyond thick. I just can't imagine someone telling me such a thing and not scrutinising it further to the point that I'd least be able to package the lie that I aim to pass on better than you have done. It's not even remotely plausible that all of a sudden they both (independently?) decided that this was going to be part of some contract negotiations. And why was Westwood having contract negotiations? At that point he still had 18 months to run on his contract. Stupid. Just utterly stupid. And not even an entertaining liar.
  19. Another gullible mug who bought the pathetic insinuations of failing former managers. Both Hutchinson and Westwood have actually been in involved in far more memorable occasions than either Luhukay or Monk ever looked remotely like reproducing. Such little men.
  20. Going against the grain here somewhat, but I'm not that convinced by him. Yet, anyway, as he's still only had a half dozen games for us. He's very vocal, of course, but it's not obvious to me that the defence looks any more organized for all his shouting. I thought Urhoghide beside him looked his least convincing tonight since coming back into the side. Often times he and Dunkley seemed to be going for the same ball. He does look fairly dominant in the air though, and in any case is pretty aggressive in attacking the ball. An excellent quality in a centre back and certainly his strong point. His distribution looks so-so at best though, and when players come at him he looks to struggle a little. Like I say though, it is early days with him, and all players generally need a run of games when they've been out for so long. In fact, you could argue that considering just how long he was out, he might have expected to look much more rusty than he has done.
  21. I must admit, Leeds does have a bigger city feel to it. Nevertheless, I prefer Sheffield.
  22. Had rotten luck with injuries, so I suppose that played a huge role, but I really thought Patrick Collins looked a talent and would go onto much better.
  23. Aye, looking at just 1 or 2 games alone is never bound to capture a team's form, but 5 wins from the last 7 is a run long enough to be considered pretty good, I'd say. But you surely know that, and besides the thread isn't about just one, two or even seven games but about the number of points we've taken for the whole season. When you think we've spend practically the whole season in the relegation zone and then of the 18 games that lay ahead of us still, it's worthwhile to estimate our chances of survival.
  24. To whom? You're making little sense. Though I suspect that's normal with you.
  25. Hard to imagine folk having a hard time with this. Why would it being pointed out that our points yield for the season thus far is not the stuff of mere relegation fodder upset you so much? It doesn't change the fact we still have a job on with staying up this season, but it's worth reflecting upon the actual quality of our squad relative to the division because that's what we compete against each week.
×
×
  • Create New...